Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Paradox of Unified Control–How Conservatives Can Win Without Bush
Vanity | 1/31/2004 | Self

Posted on 01/31/2004 3:07:29 PM PST by Kevin Curry

Can conservatives win in November if Bush loses the White House? The easy answer is "No." The thinking answer is quite different. The easy answer overestimates the power of a Democrat president who must work with a Republican-controlled Congress. The thinking answer is that gridlock is often preferable to a government shifting into high gear regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat is at the wheel. And gridlock is always preferable to progressivism, whatever its form.

Liberal nanny state progressivism is a rouged tart wearing a high tight skirt standing on the street corner, who whispers "$20 for a good time." Compassionate conservative progressivism is the wholesome girl next door in a county fair booth that reads, "$20 for a kiss"–only the bargain is even worse, because the government forces you to pay, and someone else gets the good time or the kiss.

Neither form of progressivism is acceptable to a conservative who has better and more profitable things to do with his time and money.

The key to understanding why the thinking answer attaches such small value to a Bush win this November is to understand the paradox of unified control. Common sense suggests that conservatives are best served when Republicans have unified control over the two branches that write the checks, pay the bills, and write and enforce the laws: the executive and the legislative. That was the delirious hope of conservatives, including myself, who cheered in November 2000 as Bush won the White House by the narrowest of margins and the Republican Party won combined control of the Senate and the House in 2002.

But this delirious optimism has turned steadily to dark dismay as Bush recklessly and heedlessly cranked the conservative agenda hard left and smashed it into reefs of trillion-dollar Medicare entitlements, record deficit spending, incumbent criticism-stifling campaign finance reform, illegal alien amnesty-on-the-installment-plan, NEA budget increases and the like.

Where has the Republican co-captain –Congress–been as Bush has pursed this reckless course? Mostly sleeping or meekly assisting. Would a Republican Congress have tolerated these antics from a Democratic president? Absolutely not! Why has a Republican Congress tolerated and even assisted Bush to do this? Because he is a Republican and for no other reason.

Thus, the paradox of unified control: a president can most easily and effectively destroy or compromise the dominant agenda of his own party when his own party controls Congress. Bush has demonstrated the potency of this paradox more powerfully than any president in recent memory–although Clinton had his moments too, as when he supported welfare reform.

Does this mean conservatives should desire a Democrat president when Congress is controlled by Republicans? No. Conservatives should desire a consistently conservative Republican president who with grace and inspiration will lead a Republican-controlled Congress to enact reforms that will prove the clear superiority of the conservative, small government agenda by its fruits. Bush's tax cuts are a wonderful achievement, and have had a powerful stimulating effect on the economy. But imagine how much better the result if he had not set forces in motion to neutralize this achievement by getting his trillion dollar Medicare boondoggle enacted.

Ten steps forward and ten steps back is may be how Republicans dance the "compassionate conservative" foxtrot, but in the end it merely leads us back to the same sorry place we started. It is not an improvement.

When a Republican president compromises the conservative agenda and is enabled to do so by a Republican Congress too dispirited or disorganized to resist, the next best answer might well be for a Democrat to hold the White House. Nothing would steel the courage of a Republican Congress and enliven its spirit more than to face off against a Democrat bent on implementing a liberal agenda.

Any Democrat unfortunate enough to win the White House this year will face the most depressing and daunting task of any Democrat president ever to hold the office. The Iraq War will become his war, and he will be scorned and repudiated if he does not with grace, power, and dignity bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. That means he will have to conduct the war in much the same way that Bush is conducting it now–he will not have the latitude to do much else. If he conducts the war in the manner that Bush is conducting it, his own base will abandon him.

Any Democrat president will also have to choose between spending cuts or raising taxes. If he chooses the latter, he will see his support plummet as the economic recovery sputters and stalls. If he chooses the former, he will dispirit his base supporters. In either case he will strengthen the hand of the Republican controlled-Congress and see Republican strength enhanced in the Senate and House.

If SCOTUS vacancies open up, he will see his nominees scrutinized and resisted with a zeal that can only be expected and carried out by a Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee that has suffered through years of kidney-punches and eye-gouging in judicial appointment hearings by a Democrat minority (it would help immensely if the spineless, Kennedy-appeasing Orrin Hatch were replaced as Committee Chair).

As his frustrations grow, his support plummets, and the Republican Party adds to its numbers in Congress, a Democrat president would be viewed as opportunistic roadkill by zealots in his own party, including and especially the ice-blooded and cruelly-scheming Hillary Clinton. In the run-up to the 2008 election Democrats would be faced with the choice of continuing to support a sure loser in the incumbent or a scheming hard-left alternative in Hillary. The blood-letting in the Democratic Party through the primary season and into the convention would be grievous and appalling, committed in plain view of the American public–who could be expected to vomit both of them out.

That would leave the field open for the Republican presidential candidate to achieve a victory of historic proportions in 2008. With greater Republican strength in Congress, the opportunity would again present itself for this nation to finally achieve the dream of implementing a real and substantial conservative agenda, of actually shrinking government in a large and meaningful way.

The key to achieving that dream, of course, is to carefully select an electable conservative for 2008 who will remain true to the conservative vision and not cause conservatism to fall victim again to the paradox of unified control.

It is not too soon to start looking for that candidate.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: gop
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,951-1,963 next last

1 posted on 01/31/2004 3:07:31 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
If Bush loses in November, the Democrats will take the House and the Senate.

Did I mention that Kerry would appoint the next Chief Justice to the Supreme Court. And that would be.

William Jefferson Clinton.

The only way Kerry wins is if Bill and Hillary don't try to defeat him. HIllary wants the nomination in 2008.

The only way for Kerry to stop that is to promise to make Bill Clinton Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Don't think they don't have the FBI files to get it done.

2 posted on 01/31/2004 3:13:40 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
It certainly is a dilemma for conservatives. I long for the days of gridlock. At least the Republicans in Congress would stand up and fight, as it is we are basically screwed. The insane spending spree must stop. And what is troubling, the will of the people is being dismissed. It's not by the people nor for the people.
3 posted on 01/31/2004 3:16:55 PM PST by Zipporah (Write inTancredo in 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
The key to achieving that dream, of course, is to carefully select an electable conservative for 2008 who will remain true to the conservative vision and not cause conservatism to fall victim again to the paradox of unified control.

It is not too soon to start looking for that candidate.

You are right. But we cannot afford another mistake.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

4 posted on 01/31/2004 3:20:20 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
I don't agree. And even if it were true, Clinton would never get through the Senate hearings.

Never.

5 posted on 01/31/2004 3:25:36 PM PST by Kevin Curry (Dems' magnificent four: Shrieking Nikita, Frenchie La Lurch , Gen. Jack D. Ripper, and Lionel Putz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
I see your point, but this is where your argument falls down:

If SCOTUS vacancies open up, he will see his nominees scrutinized and resisted with a zeal that can only be expected and carried out by a Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee that has suffered through years of kidney-punches and eye-gouging in judicial appointment hearings by a Democrat minority (it would help immensely if the spineless, Kennedy-appeasing Orrin Hatch were replaced as Committee Chair)/.

No they won't. They never have before, there is no reason to think that they will start now. There would have to be a turnover, a revolution, in the Senate far bigger than the 1994 House elections to give the Senate GOP enough cojones to do something like this. A Democratic President would be able to pack the Federal judiciary, up to and including the Supreme Court, with so many liberal activist judges that our system of checks and balances would be totally screwed for a generation, maybe longer, maybe forever. And the Senate will not stop him, no matter who runs it.

I'm automatically leery of any stratagery (tm GWB) that requires losing to win. And while I'm not a "Bushbot", and I don't agree with a good bit of GWB's domestic agenda, I just can't see risking the security of the country by letting a Rat run things for four years. Monsieur F'in Kerry, or the Breck Girl, or Howard the Duck, or even Hillary!(tm), would not prosecute the War on Terror in the way it needs to be prosecuted.

I agree that we have got to find a more conservative Presidential candidate in 2008, that's not really debatable. But GWB is our best bet in 2004.

}:-)4

6 posted on 01/31/2004 3:29:21 PM PST by Moose4 (Yes, it's just an excuse to post more pictures of my kitten. Get over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Did I mention that Kerry would appoint the next Chief Justice to the Supreme Court. And that would be. William Jefferson Clinton.

OK, you frightened me enough!

7 posted on 01/31/2004 3:30:36 PM PST by VRW Conspirator (Wait a second, I 'm reloading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zipporah
I long for the days of gridlock.

Gridlock isn't all bad. George Will did a great piece on gridlock about ten years ago. He essentially said that for conservatives gridlock accomplishes in the short term what they desire for the long term. A government unable to get much done is preferable to one that find it too easy to get things done.

8 posted on 01/31/2004 3:32:04 PM PST by Kevin Curry (Dems' magnificent four: Shrieking Nikita, Frenchie La Lurch , Gen. Jack D. Ripper, and Lionel Putz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Moose4
No they won't. They never have before, there is no reason to think that they will start now

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 97-3 without dissent in the Judiciary Committee, and without floor debate.

9 posted on 01/31/2004 3:33:00 PM PST by Jim Noble (Now you go feed those hogs before they worry themselves into anemia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
You "true conservatives" got 2nd degree burns when you all helped elect Clinton back in 92.

I guess you all are going for 3rd degree burns in 04.

10 posted on 01/31/2004 3:33:14 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
I agree.. gridlock IS a good thing. They're so busy fighting one another they can't spend our money. I know that this election, I will not vote for someone who does not represent me or American interests... I am done with voting for the lesser of two evils and party over principle.
11 posted on 01/31/2004 3:35:18 PM PST by Zipporah (Write inTancredo in 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Gridlock isn't all bad. George Will did a great piece on gridlock about ten years ago

Uh Kevin that was 10 years ago. If you want John Kerry to be Commander in Chief(actually it would be Kofi Annan and the UN) that's your opinion and your right to have it.

But it is also my right to have an opinion and that opinion of you wanting John Kerry and Kofi Annan to be Commanders in Chief is nuts.

12 posted on 01/31/2004 3:36:09 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
ping for conservatives.
13 posted on 01/31/2004 3:37:09 PM PST by ex-snook (Be Patriotic - STOP outsourcing American jobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
re: Did I mention that Kerry would appoint the next Chief Justice to the Supreme Court. And that would be. William Jefferson Clinton.)))

!!!

Ok. You can stop now. I know that amnesty thing made me mad, but stop, already.

14 posted on 01/31/2004 3:37:21 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
��5{��������ers are finally out in force today, and it's about time; when John F-in' Kerry takes the oath next January with their help, THEN they can get this country back on track! No doubt about it- 90% of the 1%ers are right here, madder than Howard Dean and just as delusional. FR looks to be just as entertaining as it was four years ago, with the true believers partying like it's 1999.

Once again, I expect a damn close race with little help from the reactionary utopians. If GWB loses the WH, the GOP can kiss both houses of congress goodbye, and all the hopeful prognosticating will be worth less than Joe Lieberman's momentum.

15 posted on 01/31/2004 3:37:47 PM PST by niteowl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

The last time there was gridlock there was the murder of 3,000 people and the attempted murder of 50,000. I'll take a pass.
16 posted on 01/31/2004 3:39:48 PM PST by LdSentinal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Any Democrat president will also have to choose between spending cuts or raising taxes. If he chooses the latter, he will see his support plummet as the economic recovery sputters and stalls.

Isn't that what the Republican leadership said in 1993?

Nice piece, Kevin! It looks like you put a lot of thought into this.

17 posted on 01/31/2004 3:40:51 PM PST by Scenic Sounds (Sí, estamos libres sonreír otra vez - ahora y siempre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
I don't agree. And even if it were true, Clinton would never get through the Senate hearings

Didn't the senate vote 100 to zip not to hear any eveidence against Clinton?

Final votes are for Show to the folks back home. Clinton was a sure winnner when the senate voted 100 to zip not to hear any evidence against him in his trial.

When the jury refuses to hear any evidence against the defendent... you can kind of figure the FIX is in.

Tell me how Clinton got 100 out of 100 Senators to vote NOT TO HEAR ANY EVIDENCE against him in his impeachment trial?

Everyone knew that if the the amercian people heard the evidence against Clinton, he was toast! But they voted 100 to zip NOT to allow the presentation of any evidence against Bill. Then a marjority voted not quilty.

NOW tell me again why he could not get confirmed in the Senate?

If they could not get a single Senator to vote to hear the evidince against Clinton, how many do you thing they could get to vote against him for the Supreme Court. You would need 40 votes and the last time they could not get even one.

Did Bill and Hill destory all those FBI files? I don't think so.

18 posted on 01/31/2004 3:41:33 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
I don't agree. And even if it were true, Clinton would never get through the Senate hearings. Never.

Oh lord, how many times have I heard the word NEVER and CLINTON in the same paragraph and oh lord, how many times has the speaker been wrong.

How soon we forget how many times we counted on Clinton to lose reelection, be thrown out of office, be abandoned by the Democratic leadership, be indicted (15 times), etc. None of it ever happened. How many times here did someone say that the American people would NEVER choose Al Gore but they almost did.

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER.......them's eatin words my friend.
19 posted on 01/31/2004 3:42:10 PM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds
Isn't that what the Republican leadership said in 1993?

I think President Dole said it too.

20 posted on 01/31/2004 3:42:34 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Bush could lose. Steel yourself for that possibility. You get nowhere by hyperventilating emotionally.

A Bush loss is not the end of the road. It could--and I believe would--actually be beneficial over the long haul.

But that requires a strong Republican Congress, which I am working very hard to bring about.

21 posted on 01/31/2004 3:42:36 PM PST by Kevin Curry (Dems' magnificent four: Shrieking Nikita, Frenchie La Lurch , Gen. Jack D. Ripper, and Lionel Putz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Zipporah
They're so busy fighting one another they can't spend our money

It should be obvious to any conservative willing to apply some intelligence to the matter that it is preferable to have a government sitting dead in the water than to have one drifting or steaming full throttle to the left--regardless of whether a Repubican or Democrat is at the helm.

22 posted on 01/31/2004 3:49:29 PM PST by Kevin Curry (Dems' magnificent four: Shrieking Nikita, Frenchie La Lurch , Gen. Jack D. Ripper, and Lionel Putz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
A Bush loss is not the end of the road. It could--and I believe would--actually be beneficial over the long haul

The same was said by you purists back in 92. But you all go ahead and go for those third degree burns, but I am not joining your self immobilation party.

Call George Soros, I have no doubt he would be glad to supply the gasoline(money) for your fest.

23 posted on 01/31/2004 3:50:02 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Absolutely!! I was told that years ago and at the time, I didn't buy into it.. but as time has shown, she was right.
24 posted on 01/31/2004 3:51:13 PM PST by Zipporah (Write inTancredo in 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Obviously you are a troll. Abuse button material.
25 posted on 01/31/2004 3:52:04 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
While I understand where you're coming from, I don't think anything positive will come if a Democrat wins the White House in November.

That said, you obviously put a lot of time and effort into this well-written piece. Reminds me of the days when I first joined FreeRepublic, and the majority of the posts were actually substantive. Thanks for elevating the debate.

26 posted on 01/31/2004 3:53:29 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Never thought I'd see you post something like this.
27 posted on 01/31/2004 3:53:29 PM PST by Sir Gawain (Pimptastically ghetto fantabulous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moose4
I'm automatically leery of any stratagery (tm GWB) that requires losing to win.

You are wise.

The really important thing is not George Bush....its the Supreme Court. The Democrats have realized this, but we have not yet apparently. Any Kerry appointee will be 100% liberal activist. Any Bush appointee has about a 75% chance of being okay.

The upcoming President will get to appoint more than 1 Supreme Court Justice and WILL turn the court from its current split. If the unborn had to vote between Kerry and Bush for that job which would they choose? I think I will vote their way.
28 posted on 01/31/2004 3:54:26 PM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain; Kevin Curry
He's a little...energetic...on the drug issue, but in terms of limited government I'm noticing that Kevin is right on the money.
29 posted on 01/31/2004 3:55:30 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Flawed logic start to finish. A Dem in the Whitehouse will easily extract themselves from Iraq. Just turn it over to the UN and leave. It's the wrong thing to do, but it will play to the base.

The economy will be booming, so the deficit will be going down and can be blamed on Bush anyway. No problem there.

The Republicans have never effectively resisted anything in the Senate and with a Dem in the Whitehouse, the mantra will be MANDATE and the Repubs will fold like a dirty shirt. Judicial appointments will sail through.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that the Republicans holding the line against any Clinton initiatives had anything to do with true gridlock. It all had to do with Clinton's inability to keep it in his pants. The odds of the next Dem in the Whitehouse having that problem are low.

There is no conservative candidate who will satisfy the conservative base because the conservative base can't be satisfied.

Two truths have become apparent in United States politics. The Democrat base will support their party no matter what it does and the Republican base will abandon their party no matter what it does.
30 posted on 01/31/2004 3:57:31 PM PST by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Excellent post, Kevin.

Just excellent.
31 posted on 01/31/2004 4:05:28 PM PST by RJCogburn ("That's you, Cheney. You lost the horse.".....Lucky Ned Pepper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Uhhh, is that prediction as guaranteed as the one you made that Trent Lott would resign?

Just asking.
32 posted on 01/31/2004 4:14:59 PM PST by RJCogburn ("That's you, Cheney. You lost the horse.".....Lucky Ned Pepper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
One of the most annoying things about die-hard Bush supporters--who nevertheless claim to be conservative--is how freely they give him a pass and refuse to hold him accountable. The seem to view Bush as a force of nature they are powerless to influence. They have no plan to ensure he governs responsibly. None whatsoever.

But would they find ways of making themselves heard if a Democrat tried to dump this garbage on them? The roar would be ear-splitting.

Some people have never outgrown the desire to be ruled by kings.

33 posted on 01/31/2004 4:22:33 PM PST by Kevin Curry (Dems' magnificent four: Shrieking Nikita, Frenchie La Lurch , Gen. Jack D. Ripper, and Lionel Putz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
"If SCOTUS vacancies open up, he will see his nominees scrutinized and resisted with a zeal that can only be expected and carried out by a Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee that has suffered through years of kidney-punches and eye-gouging in judicial appointment..."

At which point, he will pull out his pen and write an Executive Order. Stroke of the pen, law of the land. A SCOTUS appointment is too important ( all the marbles) to be left to a democrat with a pen.

34 posted on 01/31/2004 4:24:39 PM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
The Supreme Court is where this politics plays itself out. Bush has, maybe, a 50-50 chance of making a decent appointment and a 10% chance of getting that appointment approved.

If Bush had any cojones, he would make a recess appointment of Robert Bork. But then you would have to pass out new Depends to all Republican Senators.
35 posted on 01/31/2004 4:29:25 PM PST by edger (he)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
I don't have your faith that Republicans will retain both houses of Congress, with or without GWB. And, if you believe that a Democrat president will appoint SC justices, and have them approved by Congress, that are not more activist than a Republican president would, you're dreaming.
36 posted on 01/31/2004 4:29:59 PM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CMAC51
A Dem in the Whitehouse will easily extract themselves from Iraq.

No they won't. Withdrawal will be far more complicated than you imagine. No move will be without political risk; every move will be scrutinized severely. Winning the Dem base will not translate into wider success among the Amercian voting public. The UN doesn't vote, and doesn't matter.

The economy will be booming, . . .

Only if the tax cuts are made permanent. A tax increase will depress it, shut it down--especially if spending programs are not curtailed.

The Republicans have never effectively resisted anything in the Senate and with a Dem in the Whitehouse

Republicans have never had this level of control with a Dem in the White House. Not in recent history, anyway.

Liberalism has been discredited. It is on its downhill slide. Clinton was sly enough to realize this, which is why he moved to the right. Apart from Lieberman (who has no hope) and perhaps Clark (who has almost no hope), none of the current crop of Dem presidential hopefuls has any ability let alone any inclination to move to the right.

I must modify the last comment. Screamin' Dean is a notorious cheapstake. He is likely to control spending--not because he is admires conservative values, but because he's a cheapskate. But he really has no hope either.

Any Dem who wins this fall will expereince the most feckless and frustrating term in power since Carter.

And Carter's wan, failed administration set the stage for a mighty Reagan victory.

37 posted on 01/31/2004 4:37:41 PM PST by Kevin Curry (Dems' magnificent four: Shrieking Nikita, Frenchie La Lurch , Gen. Jack D. Ripper, and Lionel Putz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Gridlock is great, but the fastest way to send American to a European hell is to let Democrats appoint judges.
38 posted on 01/31/2004 4:41:46 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Good work. As a support Congress became Republican after two years of a Democrat President.

On the other hand 'Can Conservatives WIN with Bush'.[i.e. not the crossdressing New World Order Neocons or the RINOcons]

39 posted on 01/31/2004 4:47:33 PM PST by ex-snook (Be Patriotic - STOP outsourcing American jobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench
At which point, he will pull out his pen and write an Executive Order. Stroke of the pen, law of the land.

A SCOTUS appointment cannot be made by executive order.

40 posted on 01/31/2004 4:47:52 PM PST by Kevin Curry (Dems' magnificent four: Shrieking Nikita, Frenchie La Lurch , Gen. Jack D. Ripper, and Lionel Putz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Maybe not. If Kerry gets in and has a "do-nothing" Republican congress to win off of, Hillary might see that Kerry is going to have a good time and win the congress back from the obstructionist Republicans.

So she might take the Chief Justice spot herself. Lots could happen before 2012 and she'd be pretty old by then anyway.

41 posted on 01/31/2004 4:48:11 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Moose4
Bonesmen take care of Bonesmen like ships passing in the night!
42 posted on 01/31/2004 4:48:51 PM PST by winker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Gridlock is great, but the fastest way to send American to a European hell is to let Democrats appoint judges

Not if they can't get them through. Haven't you been paying attention to Bush's attempt to get his judges through?

And Bush has only has to contend with minority opposition on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

43 posted on 01/31/2004 4:50:05 PM PST by Kevin Curry (Dems' magnificent four: Shrieking Nikita, Frenchie La Lurch , Gen. Jack D. Ripper, and Lionel Putz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
If SCOTUS vacancies open up, he will see his nominees scrutinized and resisted with a zeal that can only be expected and carried out by a Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee that has suffered through years of kidney-punches and eye-gouging in judicial appointment hearings by a Democrat minority (it would help immensely if the spineless, Kennedy-appeasing Orrin Hatch were replaced as Committee Chair).

Hatch will be replaced Kevin, by Arlen Specter.

You elect a democrat as President, you get liberal courts. Thats the history and the fact. To deny it is folly.

44 posted on 01/31/2004 4:50:28 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Great post! BUMP
45 posted on 01/31/2004 4:52:52 PM PST by Gangsta FReeper From Da Hood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Not if they can't get them through. Haven't you been paying attention to Bush's attempt to get his judges through?

Wow, you really believe GOP Senators will miraculously have some spinal growth.

46 posted on 01/31/2004 4:53:59 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Thanks for posting the argument, certainly is interesting to consider and the input from fellow posters is also interesting....obviously there are some base problems for the re-election of GWB. Better to get the issues into the light of day, don't be dismayed by the attacks, it only shows fear. What good is that, open the discussion, conservatism is not a monolithic creed and certainly is not owned by any political party.....oh yeah, I don't need any advice and really don't appreciate the personal attacks, but reasoned arguments are always appreciated.
47 posted on 01/31/2004 4:56:10 PM PST by iopscusa (El Vaquero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Listen: this is not a good time to be a liberal Democrat in the White House. Clinton understood this, and still understands it--which is why he is trying to get Wesley Clark shaped up for the run. Clinton is vile, but his political instincts on this issue are flawless.

Hillary may pretend to--or even be--a third-way adherent, but her candidacy will bring its own hugely divisive, ugly dynamic to the fore. She will be running in 2008. Better that she run a brutal campaign against a failed Democratic incumbent in the primary and display herself in all its hideous unglory than save her game face for a fresh Republican candidate in the general election.

48 posted on 01/31/2004 4:58:58 PM PST by Kevin Curry (Dems' magnificent four: Shrieking Nikita, Frenchie La Lurch , Gen. Jack D. Ripper, and Lionel Putz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
No, but I think he could recess-appoint someone, a move that Bush has not done and probably will not do--a sort of temporary "nuclear options." I just don't believe that the Senate GOP will ever fight judicial nominees with the same intensity that the Democrats do. The Senate GOP is trying to fight "fair." The Rats don't give a damn about "fair"--like their heroes in Soviet Russia, "the ends justify the means."

Could your scenario play out? Yep, it's plausible and well-thought-out. But the odds are, IMO, very much against it. And it's just too big a risk to throw GWB over the side at the current time, on the hopes that the Congressional GOP will grow stones, that a Rat president will act somewhat responsibly in foreign affairs, and the sheeple will see through it all. Too many long shots have to happen for it all to work.

}:-)4
49 posted on 01/31/2004 5:01:06 PM PST by Moose4 (Yes, it's just an excuse to post more pictures of my kitten. Get over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CMAC51
There is no conservative candidate who will satisfy the conservative base because the conservative base can't be satisfied.

Precisely so. These "conservatives" that would prefer a Democratic win in 2004 are similar to the "Catholic" traditionalists who bash the Pope to bits.

50 posted on 01/31/2004 5:01:33 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,951-1,963 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson